JASPER BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jasper Brown appealed his second degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's use of a dictionary definition to explain 'depraved mind' to the jury and contesting the sufficiency of evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no fundamental error due to lack of timely objection and concluding the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, determining that while the dictionary definition should not have been used, there was no fundamental error due to the absence of a timely objection by defense counsel, and the evidence was sufficient to support the second degree murder conviction.
[1] A trial court should not use a dictionary definition to answer a jury's question about the meaning of a statutory term in a criminal offense.
[2] A trial court complies with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 by notifying the prosecutor and defense counsel about a proposed additional jury instruction.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court should not have used á dictionary definition to answer the jury's question about the meaning of "depraved mind" as used in section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (2000).”
Establishes the court's acknowledgment that the trial court erred in its instructional choice, though error was not fundamental.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was charged with second degree murder under Florida Statutes § 782.04(2). During trial, the jury submitted a question about the meaning of 'depr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.410 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for second degree murder. We agree with appellant that the trial court should not have used á dictionary definition to answer the jury’s question about the meaning of “depraved mind” as used in section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (2000).
However, the trial court complied with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 by notifying the prosecutor and counsel for the defendant about the proposed additional instruction in response to the jury’s question. The state objected to the proposed instruction. Defense counsel said he was “inclined to let them have the definition.” He also agreed to the procedure for giving the additional instruction.
Given the absence of a timely objection, we find no fundamental error. A reasonable reading of the instruction is that it was favorable to the defense, in that it might have encouraged a verdict on a lesser included offense. Appellant may not have the benefit of the instruction in the trial court and then complain that it was fundamental error on appeal.
We also find that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a second degree murder conviction. See State v. Bryan, 287 So. 2d 73, 76 (Fla.1973) (finding the “intentional and forceful striking of another person in anger with a loaded pistol ... which results in the discharge of that weapon, killing the victim, seems rather plainly to fall within the second degree murder conviction as ‘perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life’ ”); Douglas v. State, 652 So. 2d 887, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that “marital squabbles which occurred on the day of the killing in the present case do not constitute the reasonable provocation required for the crime of passion defense”); Hines v. State, 227 So. 2d 334, 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) (ruling that “[t]he act of the defendant in pointing the gun at the deceased and at the same time making [joking] remarks ... was ... evidence of a corrupt disregard for human life”).
We find no error in sentencing. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000); Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
AFFIRMED. STEVENSON, GROSS, JJ., and LABARGA, JORGE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Bryan, 287 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1973)
- Hines v. State, 227 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Barrant D. Douglas v. State, 652 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)